untithed

Kashrut

Kashrut (also kashruth or kashrus, כַּשְׁרוּת) refers to Jewishdietary laws. Food in accord with halakha (Jewish law) is termed kosher in English, from the Ashkenazi pronunciation of the Hebrew term kashér (כָּשֵׁר), meaning "fit" (in this context, fit for consumption by Jews according to traditional Jewish law). Jews who keep kashrut may not consume non-kosher food, but there are no restrictions on non-dietary use of non-kosher products, for example, injection of insulin of porcine origin.

Food that is not in accord with Jewish law is called treif (טרײף or treyf, derived from טְרֵפָה trēfáh). In the technical sense, treif means "torn" and refers to meat which comes from an animal containing a defect that renders it unfit for slaughter. An animal that died through means other than ritual slaughter (or by a botched slaughter) is called a neveila which literally means "an unclean thing".

Many of the basic laws of kashrut are derived from the Torah's Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with their details set down in the oral law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) and codified by the Shulchan Aruch and later rabbinical authorities. The Torah does not explicitly state the reason for most kashrut laws, and many varied reasons have been offered for these laws, ranging from philosophical and ritualistic, to practical and hygienic.

Kosher Food

Principles

The laws of kashrut derive from various passages in the Torah, and are numerous and complex, but the key principles are as follows:

Only meat from particular species is permissible:

Mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves are kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded (). (For a comprehensive review of the issue involving the difficulty that neither the hyrax nor the hare are ruminates, see Rabbi Natan Slifkin's "The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax.") In 2008, a rabbinical ruling determined that giraffes and their milk are eligible to be considered kosher.

Birds must fit certain criteria; birds of prey are not kosher. There must be an established tradition that a bird is kosher or similar to one that is before it can be consumed. The turkey, for example is native to the New World and would therefore not be found under tradition. However, it is similar to a known bird, the "fowl of India" and is therefore acceptable.

Fish must have fins and scales to be kosher (). Shellfish and non-fish water fauna are not kosher.

Insects are not kosher, except for certain species of kosher locust (unrecognized in almost all communities).

That an animal is untamed does not preclude it from being kashrut, but a wild animal must be trapped and ritually slaughtered (shechted) rather than killed some other way to be kosher.

Meat and milk (or derivatives) cannot be mixed in the sense that meat and dairy products are not served at the same meal, served or cooked in the same utensils, or stored together. Observant Jews have separate sets of dishes, and sometimes different kitchens, for meat and milk, and wait anywhere between one and six hours after eating meat before consuming milk products.

Mammals and fowl must be slaughtered in a specific fashion: slaughter is done by a trained individual (a shochet) using a special method of slaughter, shechita (). Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knife, avoiding unnecessary pain to the animal. Failure of any of these criteria renders the meat of the animal unsuitable. The body must be checked after slaughter to confirm that the animal had no medical condition or defect that would have caused it to die of its own accord within a year, which would make the meat unsuitable.

As much blood as possible must be removed through the kashering process; this is usually done through soaking and salting the meat, but organs rich in blood (the liver) are grilled over an open flame.

Utensils used for non-kosher foods become non-kosher, and make even otherwise kosher food prepared with them non-kosher. Some such utensils, depending on the material they are made from, can be made suitable for preparing kosher food again by immersion in boiling water or by the application of a blowtorch.

Food prepared by Jews in a manner that violates the Shabbat (Sabbath) may not be eaten until the Shabbat is over.

Passover has special dietary rules, the most important of which is the prohibition on eating leavened bread or derivatives of this (chametz, ). Utensils used in preparing and serving chametz are also forbidden on Passover unless they have been cleansed (kashering). Observant Jews often have separate sets of meat and dairy utensils for Passover use only.

Certain foods must have been prepared in whole or in part by Jews, including:

Biblical rules control the use of agriculture produce: for produce grown in the Land of Israel a modified version of the Biblical tithes must be applied, including Terumat HaMaaser, Maaser Rishon, Maaser Sheni, and Maaser Ani (untithed produce is called tevel); the fruit of the first three years of a tree’s growth or replanting are forbidden for eating or any other use as orlah; produce grown in the Land of Israel on the seventh year is Shviis, and unless managed carefully is forbidden as a violation of the Shmita (Sabbatical Year).

The following rules of kashrut are not universally observed:

The rule against eating chadash (new grain) before the 16th of the month Nisan; many hold that this rule does not apply outside the Land of Israel

In addition, some groups follow various eating restrictions on Passover which go beyond the rules of kashrut, such as the eating of gebrochts or garlic.

Attempts to explain the laws of kashrut

There continues to be a debate among various theories about the purposes and meaning of the laws regarding kashrut.

Traditional Jewish philosophy divided the 613 mitzvot into just two groups - laws which have a rational explanation (mishpatim) and those which do not (chukim).

Some Jewish scholars have held that these dietary laws should simply be categorized with a group of laws that are considered irrational in that there is no particular explanation for their existence. The reason for this is that there are some of God's regulations for mankind that the human mind is not necessarily capable of understanding. Related to this is the idea that the dietary laws were given as a demonstration of God's authority and that man should obey without asking for a reason.

This last view has been rejected by most classical and modern Jewish authorities . For example Maimonides holds that a Jew is permitted to seek out reasons for the laws of the Torah.

As moral symbolism

During the first few centuries of the Common Era some philosophers held that the laws of kashrut were symbolic in character. In this view, kosher animals represent virtues, while non-kosher animals represent vices. The first indication of this view can be found in the 1st century BC Letter of Aristeas, which argues that the laws have been given ... to awake pious thoughts and to form the character. It later reappears in the prolix allegories of Philo of Alexandria, and in the writings of some of the early Church Fathers. The majority of Jewish and Christian theologians, and biblical scholars, reject the symbolism hypothesis, but it features in the work of the 19th century RabbiSamson Raphael Hirsch.

The Torah prohibits 'seething the kid (goat, sheep, calf) in its mother's milk', a practice cruel only in concept, which would not be understood as cruelty by either the kid or its mother and would not cause them additional suffering; but which might still potentially inflame a human's taste for ultimate power over those creatures who are weaker. Thus, kashrut prohibits the practice itself, even if the resulting mixture is to be discarded.

Health reasons

There have been various attempts to provide empirical support for the view that the Israelite food laws have health benefits or purpose, one of the earliest being from Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed. Processing rules have an obvious impact, for instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious animals from being consumed. It is clearly plausible for the toxicity of animals to be affected by the foods they eat.

However, these risks can usually be reduced to insignificance simply by ensuring the meat is properly cooked; similarly the diseases and toxins which occur in the food of animals are also dangerous when those foods are eaten directly (eg. eating the vegetables, seeds, and fruit that pigs eat, rather than the pigs themselves), something which the food laws don't particularly forbid. The claims that the laws have a hygiene/health purpose has therefore fallen out of favour among Biblical scholars, particularly since there are obvious dangers that the laws do not cover; for example, there are no prohibitions on the types of fruit and vegetables which can be eaten, even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries, and fruits.

Nevertheless, some continue to pursue the idea that the food laws introduce health benefits. In 1953, Dr. David I. Macht, an Orthodox Jew who is one of the primary proponents of the scientifically discredited theory of biblical scientific foresight, conducted toxicityexperiments on many different kinds of animals and fish. His experiment involved lupin seedlings being supplied with extracts from the meat of various animals; Macht reported that in 100% of cases, extracts from ritually unclean meat inhibited the seedling's growth more than that from ritually clean meats. In addition, Dr. Macht's research indicated that mixtures of meat and milk, and meat that wasn't ritually slaughtered, appeared to be more toxic to lupin seeds than meat from other sources. Macht's claim that his methodology, known as phytopharmacology, could have any conclusions in relation to human consumption, has never been scientifically corroborated by independent researchers, and is regarded by the scientific community as not being mainstream science; at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication, Macht's study was explicitly challenged by a series of senior biologists

Jewish Mysticicm

Hasidism believes that everyday life is imbued with channels connecting with Divinity, the activation of which it sees as helping the Divine Presence to be drawn into the physical world; Hasidism argues that the food laws are related to the way in which such channels, termed sparks of holiness, interact with various animals.

According to the teachings of Hasidism, sparks of Holiness are released whenever a Jew manipulates any object for a holy reason (which includes eating, if it is done with the intention to provide strength to follow the laws of the Torah); however, in the view of Hasidism, not all animal products are capable of releasing their sparks of holiness. The Hasidic argument is that God designed the animals in a way that gives clear signs about whether sparks can be released from them or not, the signs being expressed in the biblical categorization into ritually clean and ritually unclean; the signs themselves are not believed to be the cause of the animal being kosher, and hence if a cow happens to born with a fully fused hoof, it does not become non-kosher on this basis alone.

As arbitrary tests of obedience

There is also the view that obedience to the laws of kashrut is a necessary precondition for a Jew to be able to reach his utmost spiritual capacity. According to this understanding, the intention of the laws is to instil obedience in the base, animalistic sectors of a person's life in order to achieve obedience and spirituality in the more lofty pursuits of Judaism.

In comparison and contrast to nearby cultures

According to Christian theologian Gordon J. Wenham, the purpose of kashrut was to help Jews maintain a distinct and separate existence from other peoples; he alleges that the effect of the laws of kashrut was to prevent socialization and intermarriage with non-Jews, preventing Jewish identity from being diluted. Wenham argued that since the impact of the food laws was a public affair, this would have enhanced Jewish attachment to them as a reminder of the special status of Jews.

Mundane socio-economic concerns (specific to the pig taboo)

Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris proposed that the Jewish prohibition against pork results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Although wild pigs forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain; however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices, including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.

Liminality

In 1966, Britishcultural anthropologistMary Douglas published the influential study Purity and Danger; this study made the proposal that prohibited foods were those which did not seem to fall neatly into any category, as an extention of the observation that people in states of liminality (in which persons are at the fringes of a group) are often fraught with danger. For example, she argued that pigs were declared unclean in Leviticus because the place of pigs in the natural order is superficially ambiguous, since they shared the cloven hoof of the ungulates, but do not chew cud.

Self-Discipline

According to other theories, the practice of kashrut serves as a daily exercise in self-discipline and self-control, strengthening the practitioner's ability to choose other difficult paths. The ability to rationally curb one's most basic appetites can be seen as the prerequisite to living in a civilized society. Also, Jews consider the aspects of kosher slaughter which emphasize and incorporate the need to avoid unnecessary suffering of the animal a reminder to the believer that having the power of life and death or to cause suffering, even to a farm animal born and bred to be eaten, is a serious responsibility rather than a pleasure to be sought after; and that to actually indulge in pleasure in the power to cause suffering, even in so common a practice as hunting, is to damage our own moral sensibilities.

The prohibition against eating the fruits of a tree for the first three years also represents a capacity for self-discipline and self-denial, as well as a lengthy period of appreciation for the bounty of God, prior to losing oneself in its enjoyment. Similarly, the requirement to tithe one's harvest, aside from the social justice aspect, serves as a reminder that this material wealth is not purely the result of one's own efforts, but represents a gift from God; and as such, to share the gift with one's fellows does not represent a real loss to anyone, even oneself.

How kashrut is viewed by contemporary Judaism

Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism hold that Jews should follow the laws of kashrut as a matter of religious obligation. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are no longer binding. Historically, Reform Judaism actively opposed kashrut as an archaism inhibiting the integration of Jews in the general society. More recently, some parts of the Reform community have begun to explore the option of a more traditional approach. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are not obligatory, but believe that Jews should consider keeping kosher because it is a valuable way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut, but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform.

Conservative Judaism follows a number of leniencies, including:

Permitting kashering with less than boiling water under certain circumstances (which permits a dishwasher to be used for meat and dairy dishes, although not at the same time, provided the dishwasher will not absorb particles of the food)

Classifying various chemical additives derived from non-kosher meat products as nonfood and permissible (for example, permitting rennet from cow's stomachs to be used in cheese and horse-hoof gelatin in foods)

A variety of additional details.

Although Reconstructionist Judaism and some perspectives within Reform Judaism encourage individuals to follow some or all aspects of the kashrut rules required by the more traditional branches, these branches do not require their observance and do not maintain their own sets of required rules.

Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of kashrut nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance, abstaining from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid drinking milk with a meat dish. Similarly, many keep a degree of kashrut at home while having no problems eating in a non-kosher restaurant, or will follow leniencies when eating out that they would not follow at home.

In the summer of 2004, a controversy arose in New York City over the presence of copepods (tiny crustaceans) in the city water supply. While some authorities hold that these creatures are microscopic and therefore negligible, others note that they are almost the size of a small insect, such as a gnat, and far larger than bacteria or other single-celled creatures; in fact can be detected by the naked eye. As of this writing a definitive ruling has not been produced as to whether copepods affect the kosher status of water, but many families have begun using filters on their drinking and cooking water supply.

Broader meaning

By extension, the broader sense of the word kosher has the meanings legitimate, acceptable, permissible, genuine, or authentic. For example, the Babylonian Talmud uses kosher in the sense of virtuous, when referring to the Dãrayavahush I (known in English, via Latin, as Darius) as a "kosher king"; Darius, a Persian King, assisted in building the Second Temple. It is this wider sense of kosher which has entered the colloquial language of certain groups of non-Jewish English speakers, particularly in the East End of London (including Cockney communities), which had a large Jewish community before the 20th Century; this use of kosher is consequently heard frequently in the vocabulary of stereotypical East End criminals and market-stall holders, in both literature and film.

The word kosher is also part of some common product names. Sometimes it is used as an abbreviation of koshering, meaning the process for making something kosher; for example, kosher salt is a form of salt which has irregularly-shaped crystals, making it particularly suitable for preparing meat according to the rules of kashrut, because the increased surface area of the crystals absorbs blood more effectively. At other times it is used as a synonym for jewish tradition; for example, a kosher dillpickle is simply a pickle made in the traditional manner of Jewish New York City pickle makers, using a generous addition of garlic to the brine, and is usually not particularly compliant with the traditional Jewish food laws. For these reasons, kosher-style has become frequently used in the food industry of countries with a heavy Jewish influence, from delis to restaurants, and even to street vendors.

Ethical eating

The translation of the root כ ש ר (K-Sh-R, Kaf-Shin-Resh) when used in this context is generally accepted to be about the "fitness" or "kosherness" of the food for consumption. There are two major strains of thought on alternative ways that "kashrut" should be practiced in order to more broadly categorize food as fit for consumption. In addition to these two major strains of thought, some, especially in the United Kingdom, have taken the fitness of the food they eat as directly dependent on how ethically it was produced, specifically in relation to its impact on the world and its people. For instance, only Fairtrade teas and coffees are served in some synagogues and community centers and eggs used are organic or free range.

Vegetarianism

Since there are few laws of kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products, many people assume that a strictly vegetarian meal would usually be inherently kosher. In practice, however, those who follow the laws of kashrut do not automatically regard all restaurants or prepared or canned food which claim to be vegetarian as kosher, due to the likelihood that the utensils were used previously with non-kosher products, as well as the concern that there may be non-kosher ingredients mixed in, which, although they may still be considered vegetarian, would make the food not kosher. Additionally, kashrut does provide special requirements for some vegetarian products, such as wine and bread.

Many vegetarian restaurants and producers of vegetarian foods do in fact acquire a hechsher, certifying that a Rabbinical organization has approved their products as being kosher. In addition to the above concerns, the hechsher will usually certify that certain suspect vegetables have been checked for insect infestation, and that steps have been taken to ensure that any cooked food meets the requirements of bishul Yisrael.

Most vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables (lettuce, cabbage, parsley, dill, etc.), must be thoroughly checked for insect infestation (see link below for video instruction on proper checking procedure from the OU). The consumption of insects involves between three and six violations of Torah law; so, according to Jewish Law, it is a greater sin than the consumption of pork. The proper procedure for inspecting and cleaning will vary by species, growing conditions, and the views of any particular rabbi.

The situation is not always reversible, however; although pareve food can contain neither meat nor dairy, that label on a product cannot be always used by vegetarians as a reliable indication, since kashrut considers fish to be pareve. Because of potential issues of mixing meat and fish (see Fish and seafood) some kashrut supervising authorities specifically indicate the presence of fish products when they are found in pareve foods.

People who have specific dietary needs should be aware that their standards for certain concepts may differ from the halachic standards for similar concepts.

Many coffee creamers currently sold in the United States are labeled as "non-dairy", yet also have a "D" alongside their hechsher, which indicates a dairy status. This is because of an ingredient (usually sodium caseinate) which is derived from milk. The rabbis categorize it as dairy that cannot be mixed with meat, but the US government considers it to lack the nutritional value of milk. Such products are also unsuitable for vegans and other strict dairy abstainers.

On the other hand, kashrutdoes recognize some processes as capable of converting a meat or dairy product into a pareve one. For example, rennet is sometimes made from stomach linings, yet is acceptable for making kosher cheese, but such cheeses might not be acceptable to some vegetarians, who would eat only cheese made from a vegetarian rennet. The same applies to kosher gelatin which in some cases is an animal product, despite its parev status.

Kashrut has procedures by which equipment can be cleaned of its previous non-kosher use, but that might be inadequate for those with allergies, vegetarians, or adherents to other religious statutes. For example, dairy manufacturing equipment can be cleaned well enough that the rabbis will grant pareve status to products manufactured afterward. Nevertheless, someone with a strong allergic sensitivity to dairy products might still react to the dairy residue, and that is why some products will have a "milk" warning on a product which is legitimately pareve.

Kashrut and animal welfare

Kashrut prohibits slaughter of an unconscious animal, and the slaughtering is done by cutting the front of the throat first. Some animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter, claiming that it can take several minutes for the animal to die and can often cause suffering. Since the spinal cord is not severed completely at the first cut, it is thought that the slaughtered animal's nervous system continues to function during the initial moments of the slaughter, causing the animal to undergo an agonisingly slow and painful death. In 2003 in the UK, an independent advisory group - the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) - concluded that the way Kosher (and Halal) meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. Kosher and halal butchers deny their method of killing animals is cruel and expressed anger over the recommendation .

Specific kashrut laws counter some of the rituals of ancient times, such as eating only one leg of a live animal so that people would not have to deal with eating the entire animal at one time (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56b); this law applies even to non-Jews and is part of the Noahide Laws. Some authorities have ruled that any unnecessary suffering by the animal can render otherwise kosher meat treife.

Kosher working conditions

The Rabbinical Assembly, the USA's association of rabbis in Conservative Judaism, has endorsed a proposed certification, called Heksher Tzedek, which would signify that food was produced under safe and just working conditions; the specific requirements for implementing the certification remain under development, but the current plan is for it to be an additional certification, rather than a replacement for kosher certification. In Israel, a new movement has gone further, demanding that food-selling establishments (grocers and restaurants) should only be considered fully kosher if their employees are paid a decent wage and treated fairly, and if the buildings have access for the handicapped; the movement envisage this as requiring an additional second certificate of kashrut, rather than as replacing the standard certification.

A number of arguments have been raised against these proposals. Several critics of the suggestions believe that entities providing Kashrut certification shouldn't be involved in the politics of labour. The labour laws of different countries can vary widely in the extent to which they directly benefit the employee's welfare, rather than the employer's income, but certain critics believe that their country's laws about labour still would not need supplementation by rabbinic certifications; for example, a number of Rabbis have argued that the laws of the USA already include labour regulations matching those of the Torah, and provide several mechanisms for individuals to report and prosecute breaches of these laws. However this information is never made transparent to consumers through certification or product markings. Another concern which has been raised is the possibility that rabbinical authorities may become legally culpable for accidents that occur in environments which they have previously certified as safe; related to this is the concern that there is currently no concretely proposed mechanism for monitoring the employer's continued compliance with the certification, particularly with things like the Heksher Tzedek where there is a need to monitor a vaguely defined quality - the fairness of the employer.

Advertising Standards

Product Labelling

Although reading the label of food products can identify obviously non-kosher ingredients, some countries allow manufacturers to neglect to mention certain ingredients; such 'hidden' ingredients can include lubricants, flavourings, and other additives, which in some cases, such as when natural flavourings are used, are more likely to be derived from non-kosher substances. However, producers of foods and food additives can contact Jewish religious authorities to have their products certified as kosher: this would most likely involve a visit to the manufacturing facilities by a committee from a rabbinic organisation, rather than by an individual rabbi, in order to inspect the production methods and contents, and if everything is sufficiently kosher a certificate would be issued.

Manufacturers sometimes identify the products which have received such certification by adding particular graphical symbols to the label; these symbols are known in Judaism as hechsherim. The hechsheirim of certain Jewish authorities are sometimes considered invalid by certain other Jewish authorities; the certification marks of the various rabbis and organisations are too numerous to list, but one of the most commonly used is that of the Union of Orthodox Congregations, who use a U inside a circle, symbolising the initials of Orthodox Union. A single K is sometimes used as a symbol for kosher, but since many countries do not allow letters to be trademarked (the method by which other symbols are protected from misuse), it only indicates that the company producing the product claims that it is kosher.

Many of the certification symbols are accompanied by additional letters or words to indicate the category of the product, according to Jewish religious law; the categorisation may conflict with legal classifications, especially in the case of food which Jewish religious law regards as dairy, but legal classification does not.

In many cases constant supervision is required, because, for various reasons, such as changes in manufacturing processes, products which were once kosher may cease to be so; for example, a kosher lubricating oil may be replaced by one containing tallow, which many rabbinic authorities view as non-kosher. Such changes are often co-ordinated with the supervising rabbi, or supervising organisation, to ensure that new packaging, which will not suggest any hechsher or kashrut, is used for the new formulation. But in some cases, existing stocks of pre-printed labels with the hechsher may continue to be used on the now non-kosher product; for such reasons, there is an active grapevine among the Jewish community discussing which products are now questionable, as well as products which have become kosher but whose labels have yet to carry the hechsher. There are also newspapers and periodicals covering the subject of kashrut products.

Legal usage

Advertising standards laws in many jurisdictions prohibit the use of the phrase kosher in a product's labelling, unless it can be shown that the product conforms to Jewish dietary laws; however, the legal qualifications for conforming to Jewish dietary laws are often defined differently in different jurisdictions. For example, in some places the law may require that a rabbi certify the kashrut nature, in others the rules of kosher are fully defined in law, and in others still it is sufficient that the manufacturer only believes that the product complies with Jewish dietary regulations. In several cases, laws restricting the use of the term kosher have later been determined to be illegal religious interference.